I just can not take the anti-hierarchical attitude expressed by so many and the assumption that any monastic led by a mysterious 'elder' is somehow 'better' than the Church, with the Bishop - for it is Orthodox ecclesiology that where the Bishop is, is the Church.

I've said it before and I will reiterate it: Those of you who simply can not abide hierarchical order and obedience, believing rumor and innuendo that our hierarchy is somehow corrupt and lacking in your version of 'orthodoxy' - there is a place for you - the priestless Old-Believers. Go - join them in schism and heresy and find peace there.

I usually don't refer to OrthodoxInfo as a reference point, but this is an excellent analysis of the role of the Bishop in Orthodoxy and our duty with respect to our Bishops.

To wit: "The Thirty-Sixth Canon of the Holy Apostles prescribes that the clergy of a diocese be punished very severely for one very serious sin, an ecclesiastical transgression.

What is this transgression?

"If the people of a diocese, on account of their own insubordination and malice are not obedient to their Bishop and do not accept him as their Shepherd, then the clergy of this diocese are to be excommunicated, because they have not corrected such an insubordinate people; inasmuch as, according to the interpretation of St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, they did not instruct such an insubordinate people by their teaching and good example."http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/bishop_place.aspx

I just can not take the anti-hierarchical attitude expressed by so many and the assumption that any monastic led by a mysterious 'elder' is somehow 'better' than the Church, with the Bishop - for it is Orthodox ecclesiology that where the Bishop is, is the Church.

I've said it before and I will reiterate it: Those of you who simply can not abide hierarchical order and obedience, believing rumor and innuendo that our hierarchy is somehow corrupt and lacking in your version of 'orthodoxy' - there is a place for you - the priestless Old-Believers. Go - join them in schism and heresy and find peace there.

I usually don't refer to OrthodoxInfo as a reference point, but this is an excellent analysis of the role of the Bishop in Orthodoxy and our duty with respect to our Bishops.

To wit: "The Thirty-Sixth Canon of the Holy Apostles prescribes that the clergy of a diocese be punished very severely for one very serious sin, an ecclesiastical transgression.

What is this transgression?

"If the people of a diocese, on account of their own insubordination and malice are not obedient to their Bishop and do not accept him as their Shepherd, then the clergy of this diocese are to be excommunicated, because they have not corrected such an insubordinate people; inasmuch as, according to the interpretation of St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, they did not instruct such an insubordinate people by their teaching and good example."http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/bishop_place.aspx

No one said a 'mysterious' elder is better than a bishop, after all there have been just as many wayward elders as their have been bishops....Rasputin comes to mind.

Anyway you're right. I'm a member of the Greek Archdiocese and detested those who criticized Arch. Iakovos during his tenure, and detested even more the evil individuals who caused so much trouble for a hierarch with the outstanding integrity of Arch. Spyridon. By the same token, I detest those that caused trouble for Metropolitan Jonah, and definitely have nothing against Metropolitan Hilarion since I have the greatest respect for ROCOR.

There are though evil influences in the Church, and as one Archbishop told me, 'where was satan sitting? Next to Christ of course.' In other words, satan is always next to those in positions of power. I don't doubt that Metropolitan Hilarion was deceived as well as pressured, but God has His purpose. We'll have to wait and see...maybe forever.

Since the trouble seems to be the hieromonk who was serving at this monastery, one would presume that the Abbess would long since have sent that hieromonk away.

But nothing in the documents indicates that the hieromonk has been sent away.

Isn't that extremely odd?

The Fathers do say of elective lawsuits that the moment a person turns to a law court for help and safety, he instantly forfeits God's help and safety. I say that to inform, not to condemn anyone, since these matters can be complex and we no longer have the same recourse to ecclesiastical courts which existed in the past.

The current hieromonk attached to the monastery is not the same priest who was accused of rape, if that is what you're talking about. IIRC the current hieromonk was recently ordained by the ROCOR.

Metropolitan Hilarion was not 'deceived' when he pointed out the canonical irregularity of a monastery being directed by a source outside of ROCOR. If one could make any argument, it would be that he was less than careful in receiving the monastery to begin with. However, his objection to the arrangement of having Fr. Dionysios directing the monastery from outside ROCOR rather than the Abbess accepting direction from Bishop George is certainly no 'persecution' of the convent.

It is Canon Law 101: the bishop directs all the institutions within his eparchial territory, except those institutions stavropigial to the Metropolitan. Since the abbess refused to take direction from either the local ROCOR bishop or the Metropolitan, His Eminence had no choice but to jettison them, since he could not assume full responsibility for them.

Again, the nuns have not been sued, persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, dispossessed, starved, excommunicated, slandered, oppressed, or even laughed at by ROCOR. Yet, the abbess appears to be threatening legal action and made inflammatory insinuations about the OCA.

At this point, the nuns have become a 'toxic asset': no bishop in his right mind is going to get involved with Abbess Aemiliane unless she is able to demonstrate obedience. So far, this is the hold up. She wants to retain spiritual obedience to Fr. Dionysios, who is outside all of the local Orthodox jurisdictions in the US (the GOA here is under Constantinople rather than Athens). It will be interesting to see how the GOA perceives her presence now that she's been released from ROCOR.

Metropolitan Hilarion was not 'deceived' when he pointed out the canonical irregularity of a monastery being directed by a source outside of ROCOR. If one could make any argument, it would be that he was less than careful in receiving the monastery to begin with. However, his objection to the arrangement of having Fr. Dionysios directing the monastery from outside ROCOR rather than the Abbess accepting direction from Bishop George is certainly no 'persecution' of the convent.

It is Canon Law 101: the bishop directs all the institutions within his eparchial territory, except those institutions stavropigial to the Metropolitan. Since the abbess refused to take direction from either the local ROCOR bishop or the Metropolitan, His Eminence had no choice but to jettison them, since he could not assume full responsibility for them.

Again, the nuns have not been sued, persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, dispossessed, starved, excommunicated, slandered, oppressed, or even laughed at by ROCOR. Yet, the abbess appears to be threatening legal action and made inflammatory insinuations about the OCA.

At this point, the nuns have become a 'toxic asset': no bishop in his right mind is going to get involved with Abbess Aemiliane unless she is able to demonstrate obedience. So far, this is the hold up. She wants to retain spiritual obedience to Fr. Dionysios, who is outside all of the local Orthodox jurisdictions in the US (the GOA here is under Constantinople rather than Athens). It will be interesting to see how the GOA perceives her presence now that she's been released from ROCOR.

,snip> I don't doubt that Metropolitan Hilarion was deceived as well as pressured, but God has His purpose. We'll have to wait and see...maybe forever.

Metropolitan Hilarion did not say that Abbess Aemiliane went against any cannons, only that she went against the 'norms' of Rocor, and the norms can be whatever a Metropolitan wants them to be...or so I believe. When I said deception, I meant a spiritual deception. In other words, a deceptive or harmful thought or decision that enters a person's mind either directly or through the influence of others. No one is immune, for even saints have been deceived. As an example, Tsar Nicholas II who was influenced by his wife, and she by Rasputin.

You are wrong though about the nuns not being slandered. All one has to read is the comments on this thread to see that they have been definitely slandered, if not calumniated...and it must hurt, for there is nothing as painful as slander and calumny to a person with integrity. But God does allow it to those He loves so as to lessen their pride. (Not my words)

As for the GOA, Abbess Amiliani was a member and quite well known. She was asked by Metropolitan Jonah to return to the U.S. and start a monastery. Because of the problems she encountered, she went under Rocor. I don't know if her monastery can go under the Church of Greece, but if it can, it would be the best all around. I personally have the highest respect for the Church in Greece. It's supported by the state and that frees the priests so they can tend solely to the spiritual needs of its members. Also they've had quite a few saints this past decades. Seems like they're everywhere in Greece.

Anyway what I said about the monastery going under the Greek Metropolitan is only my opinion, and frankly I don't know much.

Having visited 3 Dionysian monasteries in Greece, I can just say that there is quite a personality cult going on around Elder Dionysios, who is controlled by absolutely nobody and who requires from is monks and nuns total allegiance to himself, not the bishop. There was at least one case in Greece where he instructed his nuns to sue the diocesan bishop in secular court.

You post is worth disassembling and addressing point by point, because it has numerous errors:

Metropolitan Hilarion did not say that Abbess Aemiliane went against any cannons, only that she went against the 'norms' of Rocor, and the norms can be whatever a Metropolitan wants them to be...or so I believe.

The 'norms' of ROCOR have to do with their interpretation and implementation of the Canons of the Church, as decided by their Holy Synod. Norms are their practices, which they have carried out for decades, rather than the whims of one man. After all, if you ask the bishops of ROCOR whether their norms violate the canons, they would say 'no.' The norms, therefore, are their best attempts to live in accordance to the canons.

So, when they are saying that the nuns are demanding special treatment and pardon from the norms of ROCOR, they are asking for something not in accordance with ROCOR's interpretation of the canons, thus a violation of the canons. Combining this with their demands to be led by a man outside ROCOR and not under any of their bishops, then you have a clear departure from canonical order.

When I said deception, I meant a spiritual deception. In other words, a deceptive or harmful thought or decision that enters a person's mind either directly or through the influence of others. No one is immune, for even saints have been deceived. As an example, Tsar Nicholas II who was influenced by his wife, and she by Rasputin.

This is a false comparison: Rasputin sought influence over the Royal Family outside of the norms of the Russian Orthodox Church. You might say that this is avoidance of hierarchical supervision is very close to what the nuns are asking for.

However, you cannot say that Metropolitan Hilarion is spiritually deluded for enforcing policies that have always been part of ROCOR. To say such a thing would mean that the Abbess herself is deluded for expecting to remain within ROCOR and ever swearing 'allegiance unto death' with His Eminence. If you are saying that the policies of ROCOR are incorrect, and Metropolitan Hilarion's initial bending of the rules was spiritually motivated, and now he is re-entering delusion, then the nuns should not be part of ROCOR.

You are wrong though about the nuns not being slandered. All one has to read is the comments on this thread to see that they have been definitely slandered, if not calumniated...and it must hurt, for there is nothing as painful as slander and calumny to a person with integrity. But God does allow it to those He loves so as to lessen their pride. (Not my words)

Show me where ROCOR has slandered the nuns? Reread my previous posts, Zenovia.

As for the GOA, Abbess Amiliani was a member and quite well known. She was asked by Metropolitan Jonah to return to the U.S. and start a monastery. Because of the problems she encountered, she went under Rocor. I don't know if her monastery can go under the Church of Greece, but if it can, it would be the best all around. I personally have the highest respect for the Church in Greece. It's supported by the state and that frees the priests so they can tend solely to the spiritual needs of its members. Also they've had quite a few saints this past decades. Seems like they're everywhere in Greece.

If she were to be accepted by the Church of Greece, then she would end up triggering a crisis in the Greek community: all Greek parishes in the US are under the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both Alexandria and Jerusalem, as Greek entities, have been driven off of claims to the US based on this principle. I don't think the Church of Greece will accept these nuns unless they return to Greece.

At this point, the nuns will either have to demonstrate willingness to obey local authority, or find a bishop here willing to accept their conditional obedience. Otherwise, they will have to return to Greece or face the prospects of being, well, ignored.

Having visited 3 Dionysian monasteries in Greece, I can just say that there is quite a personality cult going on around Elder Dionysios, who is controlled by absolutely nobody and who requires from is monks and nuns total allegiance to himself, not the bishop. There was at least one case in Greece where he instructed his nuns to sue the diocesan bishop in secular court.

I saw a book written by him online. Have you read it? What does he teach?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

By the same token, I detest those that caused trouble for Metropolitan Jonah,

So, in defending Metropolitan Jonah against calumny, you engage in calumny against other bishops in the OCA, one of whom is my own diocesan bishop. How is that honorable?

So you're telling me that if someone defends another against a perceived injustice, it's slander? So I was right then, all lawyers are all going to hell.

Reminds me of a joke...one day God was walking through Heaven and noticed the wall that separated Heaven from Hell was falling down. He summons the devil and reminds him its his responsibility to upkeep the wall. The devil laughs at Him and says he's not going to repair the wall. God tells him that He will sue; so the devil laughs harder and says, "Where are You going to find a lawyer?"

Having visited 3 Dionysian monasteries in Greece, I can just say that there is quite a personality cult going on around Elder Dionysios, who is controlled by absolutely nobody and who requires from is monks and nuns total allegiance to himself, not the bishop. There was at least one case in Greece where he instructed his nuns to sue the diocesan bishop in secular court.

I saw a book written by him online. Have you read it? What does he teach?

I don't know the Elder Dionysius even though another family member does, but the only thing I found problematic was his close connection with a certain powerful hiararch whose worldly values fall short of the mark.

I know he is a spiritual son of one of the greatest future saints in Greece, the Elder Aimilianos, who even the Elder Paisios and Elder Porpherios, (also great future saints), said was the 'meekest' of them all....which means of course that the Elder Aimilianos is the most Christ like of them all. These would be the Elder Dionysios' credentials, but since we are to judge others from their works, then the monasteries he had the women restore and help build throughout Greece is the best testimony to him.

There are bound to be those that will find something odd about him and the nuns who are his spiritual children, but look, Saint Nektarios had his share of accusations when he established the monastery in Aegina, even to the point of a political dignitary accusing his nuns of throwing their babies down the well.

By the same token, I detest those that caused trouble for Metropolitan Jonah,

So, in defending Metropolitan Jonah against calumny, you engage in calumny against other bishops in the OCA, one of whom is my own diocesan bishop. How is that honorable?

So you're telling me that if someone defends another against a perceived injustice, it's slander? So I was right then, all lawyers are all going to hell.

If we are obedient to the laws of our Orthodox Church, we are charged with obedience to our Bishop, or in the case of a Synod of diocesan Bishops, the Primate of our Synod.

UNLESS that hierarch is engaged in heresy or criminal activity which is violative of the laws of God. (In other words, Bishops say in the old USSR might have engaged in criminal activity as defined by the Communist Party which would not be contrary to the laws of God as a simplistic analogy.) Neither of these most serious of grounds apply in the instant matter, or that matter, most of the decisions which whip some of you online into a fervor.

In the normal course of Church life, we, laity and clergy alike, simply do not get to pick and choose which decisions we like and either forget about the rest of them or overtly act in defiance of them. Frankly, if simply making poor personnel management decisions which while unwise were canonically in order were a removable offense against any of our Bishops, there would be few Bishops at all!

As Father G. bluntly puts it, the nuns have no choice - either be obedient to the local Church and her Bishop or choose another path outside of the faith. You can not have it both ways.

look, Saint Nektarios had his share of accusations when he established the monastery in Aegina, even to the point of a political dignitary accusing his nuns of throwing their babies down the well.

But did St. Nektarios fire back with the threat of law suits against those who slandered him?

I would love to see more monasteries in the US, and I was hopeful regarding the establishment of this particular monastic foundation, though not being very familiar with Elder Dionysios and his reputation aside from the fact that Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) called him from Mt. Athos to hear his last confession and to serve at his funeral decades ago. That being said, I find very scandalous the documents that Abbess Aemiliane has posted on her website to be seen by the whole world. These documents include private emails to Elder Dionysios from Fr. Melchisedek (now Bishop Melchisedek of the OCA) and from laypeople who have come forward with accusations against the priestmonk who has been a focus of recent controversy. There is very personal information in these emails from spiritual children of Elder Dionysios which could be considered "Confessions" and which definitely should not be shared. Posting all of this online with threats of litigation and such casts the monastery, and Elder Dionysios (who must have provided the emails), in a very unfavorable light.

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

I have no idea what can be done against this out-of-control abbess. Her conduct has been most scandalous and unbecoming of a monastic, let alone an abbess. If this is how Elder Dionysios' disciples behave, he is one elder we should avoid.

By the same token, I detest those that caused trouble for Metropolitan Jonah,

So, in defending Metropolitan Jonah against calumny, you engage in calumny against other bishops in the OCA, one of whom is my own diocesan bishop. How is that honorable?

So you're telling me that if someone defends another against a perceived injustice, it's slander?

No, I'm not. When you defend another against perceived injustice by making false accusations against those you deem to be perpetuating the injustice, then you are committing slander. IMO, you are making possibly false accusations against the Holy Synod of the OCA, a synod of bishops of whom my own diocesan bishop is a member. Therefore, you are quite possibly engaging in slander.

With some in the Church, it seems that 'elder admiration' can easily become an obsession, cultish and contrary to church law.

When someone wears a frock, it can become a very mesmerizing and dangerous thing. I haven't seen it with elders, although I'm sure it exists, but I have seen it in full force with a 'sacophantic' priest as well as with a top bishop. In both cases their values were not quite in tune with Christian values, but it mattered not to their followers, since they saw their weakness' as a confirmation of their own beliefs and values. We can say their followers are their fruits.

I have not seen the nuns living the high life, to make judgement on the Elder Dionysius. As far as I can tell, they have been sacrificial in everything, which I'm sure threatens those with lesser virtue. Anyway I make my own judgement and depend solely on the discernment God gives me, and the experiences I have had in life. I have the greatest respect for the Metropolitan Hilarion, but I do believe there are other forces at work, otherwise he would not be saying one thing, and then doing something else unless what the abess says is true, there is a culture of fear.

I experienced these things in another time and another jurisdiction, so I know well what I'm talking about. I have seen so called 'Orthodox Christians' not only go along with every slander and calumny, but even add to it because their suspicions had been aroused against a certain hierarch by weak self serving individuals. I can understand how the circumstances are forcing the Abess to go to court, not only to clear her name so she can continue her good work, but to clear the name of her nuns and the monastery.

Until I find fault with anything she has done or said, I will place no more judgement on her than I would on any of the great saints in our Church who have undergone similar persecutions.

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

Saint Nektarios was not loved, he was hated by evil individuals and it was these people that aroused suspicions in the Patriarch of Alexandria and in everyone else as well. Almost everyone at that time accepted these lies, something that God allows so that he can lessen the pride and perfect the soul of those He loves. When the time was ripe, the Holy Spirit began to work peoples hearts, and it was then that they realized it was all lies, and that he was a saint.

One must feel sorry for his persecutors and those that went along so readily with what was being said, because if Christ was around, these same people would have been the first ones to cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him.

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

Saint Nektarios was not loved, he was hated by evil individuals and it was these people that aroused suspicions in the Patriarch of Alexandria and in everyone else as well. Almost everyone at that time accepted these lies, something that God allows so that he can lessen the pride and perfect the soul of those He loves. When the time was ripe, the Holy Spirit began to work peoples hearts, and it was then that they realized it was all lies, and that he was a saint.

One must feel sorry for his persecutors and those that went along so readily with what was being said, because if Christ was around, these same people would have been the first ones to cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him.

Zenovia - your passions are clouding your judgment in this matter. Comparing these nuns to saints and even Christ is more than a bit over the top -regardless of the circumstances.

The fact remains that canonically no Orthodox Bishop in the US could accept the requirement of these sisters that their ultimate loyalty and spiritual obedience was to an Elder in Greece rather than to the proper local Bishop.

It seems as if some in Orthodoxy want to emulate our Roman friends and establish 'orders' of monastics whose loyalty and obedience is 'extra-diocesan" and to their prefect and/or abbey - not to the local ordinary Bishop. Quite a heterodox concept indeed.

look, Saint Nektarios had his share of accusations when he established the monastery in Aegina, even to the point of a political dignitary accusing his nuns of throwing their babies down the well.

But did St. Nektarios fire back with the threat of law suits against those who slandered him?

I would love to see more monasteries in the US, and I was hopeful regarding the establishment of this particular monastic foundation, though not being very familiar with Elder Dionysios and his reputation aside from the fact that Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) called him from Mt. Athos to hear his last confession and to serve at his funeral decades ago. That being said, I find very scandalous the documents that Abbess Aemiliane has posted on her website to be seen by the whole world. These documents include private emails to Elder Dionysios from Fr. Melchisedek (now Bishop Melchisedek of the OCA) and from laypeople who have come forward with accusations against the priestmonk who has been a focus of recent controversy. There is very personal information in these emails from spiritual children of Elder Dionysios which could be considered "Confessions" and which definitely should not be shared. Posting all of this online with threats of litigation and such casts the monastery, and Elder Dionysios (who must have provided the emails), in a very unfavorable light.

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

It seems highly suspicious that she is sharing correspondence between other people. How did she obtain their email and letter correspondences in the first place?

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

Saint Nektarios was not loved, he was hated by evil individuals...

See above. Yes, St. Nektarios was persecuted and endured great slander, but he did so in accordance with the gospel and in a manner befitting the saints. That is, he endured slander "with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation" as I stated above, and therefore was greatly glorified after his repose.

Do the saints ever speak of "evil individuals"? All people are capable of evil, myself first of all, but to speak of "evil individuals" or "evil people" seems to miss the mark.

The righteous who are wrongly slandered and persecuted do not lash out with anger, threats, self-justification, etc. precisely because the righteous seek approval from God rather than men and are at peace within themselves knowing that their conscience is clean before God despite the false accusations of men. The righteous know that “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord”, and that if we do not defend ourselves we will have a good defense from the Lord. Those who seek to defend themselves passionately, who seek revenge, retaliation, etc. are taking matters into their own hands and not trusting in the Lord as they ought.

Now, we all have weaknesses, and all monastics are not expected to be deified saints by virtue of their vows or living arrangements. So we should not pick on the nuns merely for having faults and passions just as we have. The problem is when the nuns (or the Abbess) compare themselves to the saints and try to convince others that they are saints as though we should automatically venerate them as such. This kind of behavior is typical of those who are deluded. I hope the nuns, the Abbess, and the Elder are not deluded, but their actions surrounding these events have not been very edifying or spiritually encouraging.

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

Saint Nektarios was not loved, he was hated by evil individuals and it was these people that aroused suspicions in the Patriarch of Alexandria and in everyone else as well. Almost everyone at that time accepted these lies, something that God allows so that he can lessen the pride and perfect the soul of those He loves. When the time was ripe, the Holy Spirit began to work peoples hearts, and it was then that they realized it was all lies, and that he was a saint.

One must feel sorry for his persecutors and those that went along so readily with what was being said, because if Christ was around, these same people would have been the first ones to cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him.

Zenovia - your passions are clouding your judgment in this matter. Comparing these nuns to saints and even Christ is more than a bit over the top -regardless of the circumstances.

The fact remains that canonically no Orthodox Bishop in the US could accept the requirement of these sisters that their ultimate loyalty and spiritual obedience was to an Elder in Greece rather than to the proper local Bishop.

It seems as if some in Orthodoxy want to emulate our Roman friends and establish 'orders' of monastics whose loyalty and obedience is 'extra-diocesan" and to their prefect and/or abbey - not to the local ordinary Bishop. Quite a heterodox concept indeed.

How can anyone not compare to saints those that selflessly dedicate their lives to do God's work, especially when they suffer persecution? As yet, I have not seen anything that I would consider self serving in Sister Ameliani. Can you say in all honesty that you have?

As for the accusations, I don't understand what you're saying. I don't see where the sisters loyalty rather than respect was to their elder in Greece, because it's not mentioned in any of the papers. The spiritual father assigned to them was under Rocor. Also there is nothing that shows disloyalty or disobedience towards Metropolitan Hilarion, or that she did anything that was not within ecclesiastical law.

Look, I will never accept that Sister Ameliani or for that matter any monastic or hierarch did anything wrong, unless I see actual facts that will convince me otherwise, because 'malevolent beings' do exist, and they do control weak individuals, and they do have the innate ability of arousing suspicions of wrong doings in others....and this is all part of Orthodox belief.

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

Saint Nektarios was not loved, he was hated by evil individuals...

See above. Yes, St. Nektarios was persecuted and endured great slander, but he did so in accordance with the gospel and in a manner befitting the saints. That is, he endured slander "with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation" as I stated above, and therefore was greatly glorified after his repose.

Do the saints ever speak of "evil individuals"? All people are capable of evil, myself first of all, but to speak of "evil individuals" or "evil people" seems to miss the mark.

The righteous who are wrongly slandered and persecuted do not lash out with anger, threats, self-justification, etc. precisely because the righteous seek approval from God rather than men and are at peace within themselves knowing that their conscience is clean before God despite the false accusations of men. The righteous know that “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord”, and that if we do not defend ourselves we will have a good defense from the Lord. Those who seek to defend themselves passionately, who seek revenge, retaliation, etc. are taking matters into their own hands and not trusting in the Lord as they ought.

Now, we all have weaknesses, and all monastics are not expected to be deified saints by virtue of their vows or living arrangements. So we should not pick on the nuns merely for having faults and passions just as we have. The problem is when the nuns (or the Abbess) compare themselves to the saints and try to convince others that they are saints as though we should automatically venerate them as such. This kind of behavior is typical of those who are deluded. I hope the nuns, the Abbess, and the Elder are not deluded, but their actions surrounding these events have not been very edifying or spiritually encouraging.

Excuse me, but we Orthodox as well as all Christians do believe in demons, and we Orthodox as well as other Christians do believe in possession, so why are you denying the existance of people being controlled by evil and malevolent beings? When you say that Saint Nektarios is loved and respected because of his meekness and character, you are saying it after the fact. Would you be saying it if you knew him in his early years, when the same meekness and self sacrifice was considered a threat by self serving individuals, rather than a virtue and he was sent packing by the Patriarch and his court....pennyless and with a harmed reputation?

As for Sister Ameliani, have you seen or read anything that would give the impression that she is lashing out with anger and vengeance towards anyone, I haven't? What I have seen so far, is someone that wants to continue doing God's work, and will not allow it to be hindered and destroyed by malevolence. Maybe those that see her personality and actions differently, are projecting what their own motives would be in a similar situation?

Okay look I think this is enough. We really should stop this thread. The Abess has had some horrific experiences in her life, and she was saved by the saintly Elder Amilianos, so God must have a purpose for her life above and beyond that of others. She has worked hard all these years for the Glory of God, no matter how much pain she was in, so I think a little respect is due. Instead of becoming a judge and jury, I think it's best to leave it to the courts...

St. Nektarios is so loved, and has been so glorified, precisely because he bore injustice with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation.

Saint Nektarios was not loved, he was hated by evil individuals...

See above. Yes, St. Nektarios was persecuted and endured great slander, but he did so in accordance with the gospel and in a manner befitting the saints. That is, he endured slander "with meekness, humility, faith and trust in God; without malice, threats, or retaliation" as I stated above, and therefore was greatly glorified after his repose.

Do the saints ever speak of "evil individuals"? All people are capable of evil, myself first of all, but to speak of "evil individuals" or "evil people" seems to miss the mark.

The righteous who are wrongly slandered and persecuted do not lash out with anger, threats, self-justification, etc. precisely because the righteous seek approval from God rather than men and are at peace within themselves knowing that their conscience is clean before God despite the false accusations of men. The righteous know that “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord”, and that if we do not defend ourselves we will have a good defense from the Lord. Those who seek to defend themselves passionately, who seek revenge, retaliation, etc. are taking matters into their own hands and not trusting in the Lord as they ought.

Now, we all have weaknesses, and all monastics are not expected to be deified saints by virtue of their vows or living arrangements. So we should not pick on the nuns merely for having faults and passions just as we have. The problem is when the nuns (or the Abbess) compare themselves to the saints and try to convince others that they are saints as though we should automatically venerate them as such. This kind of behavior is typical of those who are deluded. I hope the nuns, the Abbess, and the Elder are not deluded, but their actions surrounding these events have not been very edifying or spiritually encouraging.

Excuse me, but we Orthodox as well as all Christians do believe in demons, and we Orthodox as well as other Christians do believe in possession, so why are you denying the existance of people being controlled by evil and malevolent beings?

But, seriously, there is a canonical problem with the whole situation. A monastery is presided over by the Bishop, not by an 'elder.' The abbess is supposed to be answerable to her bishop, and no one else. Let's remember the 'chain of command' in the Church: who supervises Elder Dionysios? Why his bishop does! This means that one monastery would have two bishops responsible for its spiritual well-being?

It was strange that ROCOR would have received them to begin with having this rather large caveat in their obedience, where 'loyalty to the death' with Metropolitan Hilarion would not naturally include unreserved obedience.

Why don't they just pack up and go back to their mother monastery in Greece? That is where they belong since they are not under the jurisdiction of any Orthodox Church over here.

I thought of that, too. Or the Greeks here.

If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that "the D.C. nuns" are not Greek ethnically, and are Americans. The bishop they were under in Greece tends to have non-Greek monastics under him. Although they were within the Church of Greece when they were in Greece.

Note too, although Metropolitan Hilarion suggested that they affiliate their monastery with their bishop in Greece, there is a long standing understanding between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, that the Church of Greece is not to establish monasteries, even "metochia," in the diaspora--(not intended to provoke those who are offended by this term, but this is the terminology used and understood by these two Holy Orthodox Churches).

I would also suggest that the problems with these nuns are more serious than would be ascertained from Metropolitan Hilarion's letter. If ROCOR's only problems with them were the "certain spiritual practices and references to spiritual authority within the charter of the monastery are at variance with the norms and traditions of ROCOR" typically, the practices and the language in the charter would be changed in response to the directives of the superior ecclesiastical authority. But that doesn't seem to have been feasible. Given their short history, the fact that the OCA would not accept them and their primate's interest in them contributed to damaging his relationship with his Synod and the OCA's Metropolitan Council, then, their short term relationship with ROCOR, I can't imagine another authentic jurisdiction in America would jump to grant them spiritual refuge.

All one needs to do is read what they've put up on their website. Totally lacking in basic Christian character, wantonly against the canons of the Church, and a flagrant violation of monastic ethos. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up excommunicated within the next two years, unless they repent.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 06:46:38 AM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

All one needs to do is read what they've put up on their website. Totally lacking in basic Christian character, wantonly against the canons of the Church, and a flagrant violation of monastic ethos. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up excommunicated within the next two years, unless they repent.

I just finished reading many of the attached documents along with the text from Abbess A. Oh boy! I'm less scandalized by the fact that they want to sue than by what she's actually written there. I doubt anyone would want to take them under their jurisdiction after reading that.

I went onto their website too. I have trouble understanding what the Abbess has written, it reads like a "Google translator" to me.

But, does anyone know the history or background of the property the monastery is on? Wow! $1 Million; a church; a barn, I wish there were more pictures. How did they purchase such a large parcel?

It was originally begun by Bishop Phillip Zampino who was part of the Charismatic Episcopal Church. I have family that attended this church for a very long time and I went a few times for nephews' baptisms. I don't know all the ins and outs as there were personality issues all along and my SIL and family left before things fell the pieces. What I do remember is that they did build a church and had other houses on The Farm (as it was called). They had Episcopal nuns living there as well as a family or two who had committed themselves to the community. I didn't quite understand it at the time as it seemed a little cultish and weird to me. But, that is why there are several buildings. At least one or two were original to the property when it was bought by "the community". They built the church and probably another building or house...I can't remember.

Bishop Phil eventually either left or was asked to leave the CEC and started his own off shoot group. The community dwindled to the point that they could not financially hold on to the property. I don't know if it went into bankruptcy or not.

When I heard from my SIL that the property was for sale I told several Orthodox people about it. I knew that Met JONAH wanted to start a monastic community in the DC area. News eventually got to the nuns and the rest is history.

Yes, I think her posted letter and documents only succeed in confirming the reticence of all those who resisted the Abbess' presence in the US, and by extension Fr. Dionysios' influence. For all the talk about saints and humility, what is obvious here is that their approach is not in keeping with their stated examples.

I would love for someone to show me where St. Nektarios or St. John of Shanghai ever threatened people with lawsuits!

What I have been thinking about over the last few days is the administrative problems that this situation sheds light on. Neither the OCA nor the ROCOR have mandatory 'constitutions' it seems. The Antiochian Archdiocese has a model constitution format, which is required for all entities that wish to form under the Archdiocese. Basically, you can't even get started without following the Archdiocese's model, and any entity received into the Archdiocese is expected to adopt and follow the model. The Ben Lomond land fight was won by the Archdiocese ultimately because of this policy.

I think the OCA and the ROCOR would benefit greatly from developing a single model for their monasteries to follow.

In this case, however, it seemed that the departure from good order led to a great deal of the conflict we are now seeing with the DC nun situation. Metropolitan Jonah receieved the nuns on a 'conditional basis' and never fully integrated them or the attending clergy into the OCA, which led to confusion over who they really were under and what their actual chain of command was.

This was uninetionally aggravated by Metropolitan Hilarion's decision to receive the nuns and attending clergy through ambiguous letters that lacked some of the technical language usually included in transfer letters, yet left the distinct impression that Metropolitan Jonah had recieved them and was then transferring them to Metropolitan Hilarion. While people can speculate over the language of the lettersand how they are to be understood, it is pretty clear now that the nuns and the bishops had very, very different notions of what was going on.

Some would argue that the bishops changed their minds, but I would say from the paper trail now presented that the both metropolitans in question understood this situation to be far more ambiguous than the nuns did, yet the nuns insistence on remaining attached to Fr. Dionysios is the primary cause for such ambiguity to be necessesary. The adherence to a single policy is critical to avoid running into another one of these messes.

I think it is also a good 'red flag' warning system when you have monks or nuns who ask for special exemptions from standard order in the Church. After all, how many of you would be comfortable with you parish priest having a 'special arrangement' with the bishop regarding who he answers to. Goodness is simple, and it is only evil and brokenness that is complicated. If the nuns could not do what they needed to do following standard Church order, it would have been better not to receive them at all.

Eventually, it seems one of three likely outcomes are in order:

1) they become an 'independent' entity like HTM (the GOA will not receive them from what I hear nor will they be allowed to say they are under the COG),

2) they return to Greece, or

3) they are received into another jurisdiction with a pledge to be 100% obedient and swear never to talk about lawyers and lawsuits.

All one needs to do is read what they've put up on their website. Totally lacking in basic Christian character, wantonly against the canons of the Church, and a flagrant violation of monastic ethos. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up excommunicated within the next two years, unless they repent.

I just finished reading many of the attached documents along with the text from Abbess A. Oh boy! I'm less scandalized by the fact that they want to sue than by what she's actually written there. I doubt anyone would want to take them under their jurisdiction after reading that.

Yes, I think her posted letter and documents only succeed in confirming the reticence of all those who resisted the Abbess' presence in the US, and by extension Fr. Dionysios' influence. For all the talk about saints and humility, what is obvious here is that their approach is not in keeping with their stated examples.

I would love for someone to show me where St. Nektarios or St. John of Shanghai ever threatened people with lawsuits!

What I have been thinking about over the last few days is the administrative problems that this situation sheds light on. Neither the OCA nor the ROCOR have mandatory 'constitutions' it seems. The Antiochian Archdiocese has a model constitution format, which is required for all entities that wish to form under the Archdiocese. Basically, you can't even get started without following the Archdiocese's model, and any entity received into the Archdiocese is expected to adopt and follow the model. The Ben Lomond land fight was won by the Archdiocese ultimately because of this policy.

I think the OCA and the ROCOR would benefit greatly from developing a single model for their monasteries to follow.

In this case, however, it seemed that the departure from good order led to a great deal of the conflict we are now seeing with the DC nun situation. Metropolitan Jonah receieved the nuns on a 'conditional basis' and never fully integrated them or the attending clergy into the OCA, which led to confusion over who they really were under and what their actual chain of command was.

This was uninetionally aggravated by Metropolitan Hilarion's decision to receive the nuns and attending clergy through ambiguous letters that lacked some of the technical language usually included in transfer letters, yet left the distinct impression that Metropolitan Jonah had recieved them and was then transferring them to Metropolitan Hilarion. While people can speculate over the language of the lettersand how they are to be understood, it is pretty clear now that the nuns and the bishops had very, very different notions of what was going on.

Some would argue that the bishops changed their minds, but I would say from the paper trail now presented that the both metropolitans in question understood this situation to be far more ambiguous than the nuns did, yet the nuns insistence on remaining attached to Fr. Dionysios is the primary cause for such ambiguity to be necessesary. The adherence to a single policy is critical to avoid running into another one of these messes.

I think it is also a good 'red flag' warning system when you have monks or nuns who ask for special exemptions from standard order in the Church. After all, how many of you would be comfortable with you parish priest having a 'special arrangement' with the bishop regarding who he answers to. Goodness is simple, and it is only evil and brokenness that is complicated. If the nuns could not do what they needed to do following standard Church order, it would have been better not to receive them at all.

Eventually, it seems one of three likely outcomes are in order:

1) they become an 'independent' entity like HTM (the GOA will not receive them from what I hear nor will they be allowed to say they are under the COG),

2) they return to Greece, or

3) they are received into another jurisdiction with a pledge to be 100% obedient and swear never to talk about lawyers and lawsuits.

All one needs to do is read what they've put up on their website. Totally lacking in basic Christian character, wantonly against the canons of the Church, and a flagrant violation of monastic ethos. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up excommunicated within the next two years, unless they repent.

I just finished reading many of the attached documents along with the text from Abbess A. Oh boy! I'm less scandalized by the fact that they want to sue than by what she's actually written there. I doubt anyone would want to take them under their jurisdiction after reading that.

I would just add that attempting to follow canonical order in what is always a 'disorderly' region, i.e. the USA, is one of the reasons why the EA's are studying these issues and trying to establish the very sort of constitution Father is referring to in his post.

I also have to note that calling Bishops 'evil' or 'malevolent' just because you disagree with them is an affront to the Church and canonical order. Good works alone do not justify not 'playing within the rules' - whether it is in sport, personal relationships or the Church.

As for monasteries, the Orthodox Church in constrast to the RCC is and has always been a monastic faith. Monastacism is the essence of the Orthodox Church, and without it, would become nothing more that a Protestant faith with a little 'Byzantine' window dressing.

This is the first time that I have heard of this. I guess all of the laos in my little corner of the world, my parish, is full of non-essential people, except of course for our three nuns.

This is because Carl is or has been influenced/taught by liberals.Zenovia was taught the genuine tradition of the Church.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

As for monasteries, the Orthodox Church in constrast to the RCC is and has always been a monastic faith. Monastacism is the essence of the Orthodox Church, and without it, would become nothing more that a Protestant faith with a little 'Byzantine' window dressing.

Quote

This is the first time that I have heard of this. I guess all of the laos in my little corner of the world, my parish, is full of non-essential people, except of course for our three nuns. - Carl

This is because Carl is or has been influenced/taught by liberals. (in my opinion.)Zenovia was taught the genuine tradition of the Church.

Quote

As for monasteries, the Orthodox Church in constrast to the RCC is and has always been a monastic faith.

Although I would on the other hand partly but not entirely agree with this statement, because I feel that the RCC also had monasticism as the essence to it as well in the past. I think that part of the reasons for the RCC falling away from orthodoxy has been because monasticism has been weakened in it, especially since the 13th century when other religious order forms, such as mendicants began to compete with monasticism. Though I think monasticism within it was still reasonably well off until before the french revolution period, 1780's, and before the 1940's.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 03:07:16 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

As for monasteries, the Orthodox Church in constrast to the RCC is and has always been a monastic faith. Monastacism is the essence of the Orthodox Church, and without it, would become nothing more that a Protestant faith with a little 'Byzantine' window dressing.

This is the first time that I have heard of this. I guess all of the laos in my little corner of the world, my parish, is full of non-essential people, except of course for our three nuns.

This is because Carl is or has been influenced/taught by liberals.Zenovia was taught the genuine tradition of the Church.

It is great to know that you agree with Zenovia. If you do not mind, would you point me toward some sources other than you and Zenovia?

Indeed, seeming to have an unquestioning admiration for anyone titled 'elder', expressing that 'evil' and malefaction are lurking behind everyone and everything one disagrees with and failing to acknowledge and accept the ecclesiology of the Church beginning with that of St. Ignatius of Antioch is, well - hardly 'liberal.'

All one needs to do is read what they've put up on their website. Totally lacking in basic Christian character, wantonly against the canons of the Church, and a flagrant violation of monastic ethos. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up excommunicated within the next two years, unless they repent.

Look I've never part of a 'mob', and I never will be. I would rather die then scream 'crucify' just to go along with others when I know that none of it is true.

I have read what was written by Sister Aemiliani, so when you say it lacks Christian character and ethos, and in contrast I see it as projecting the moral integrity that only a true Christian is capable of, it can only mean that:

As for monasteries, the Orthodox Church in constrast to the RCC is and has always been a monastic faith. Monastacism is the essence of the Orthodox Church, and without it, would become nothing more that a Protestant faith with a little 'Byzantine' window dressing.

This is the first time that I have heard of this. I guess all of the laos in my little corner of the world, my parish, is full of non-essential people, except of course for our three nuns.

This is because Carl is or has been influenced/taught by liberals.Zenovia was taught the genuine tradition of the Church.

It is great to know that you agree with Zenovia. If you do not mind, would you point me toward some sources other than you and Zenovia?

This is not something which can be found in a specific source although there are many references to it. For instance the monasteries of Mount Athos is considered the equivalent to the Vatican in preserving the deposit of faith, and the Bulwark of Orthodoxy has always been Saint Gregory Palamas, and he was a strong advocate of monastacism and the 'Hesycast' method of praying.

Anyway, it is traditional Orthodox belief that the world continues to exist only because of the prayers of the monastics, and the Orthodox Church has always been accused by other Christian faiths as being too other worldly, while the Orthodox Church has always accused them of being too much of this world.

The Abbess chooses to commemorate her Priest in Greece rather than any US based Bishop. Both Met. Jonah and Bishop Melchizedek were under Father Dionysios and one of the Hierarchs is already retired with an uncertain future. Does the Abbess want to get rid of Bishop Melchizedek by exposing something about him?

Looks to me like:

1. The OCA attempted to use Greece as a source of Bishops for the OCA.2. Someone is trying to get rid of the OCA's Holy Synod one Bishop at a time. No Bishops, No Holy Synod, No OCA.3. ROCOR was an unwilling accomplice not aware of the complexity between the Hierarchs of the OCA and Greece.

All one needs to do is read what they've put up on their website. Totally lacking in basic Christian character, wantonly against the canons of the Church, and a flagrant violation of monastic ethos. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up excommunicated within the next two years, unless they repent.

Look I've never part of a 'mob', and I never will be. I would rather die then scream 'crucify' just to go along with others when I know that none of it is true.

I have read what was written by Sister Aemiliani, so when you say it lacks Christian character and ethos, and in contrast I see it as projecting the moral integrity that only a true Christian is capable of, it can only mean that:

1- You are projecting your own character into what she wrote, or ...

2- You are deliberately spinning in order to persuade others, or...

3- You are blindly following what others are telling you.

Anyway this is how I see it, so take it as you will...

Another alternative is you're wrong. A Christian response is to die to self, be martyred, etc. Not to try to justify yourself or sue people. Quite simple, really.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 06:37:24 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)